On the Divestment Debate:Countering
Hatred and Intimidation with Knowledge

To
the University of Pennsylvania Community

As
I anticipated in my Welcome Back message last month,
the tragic conflict in the Middle East has become a major subject
of heated, often emotional debate within the Penn community
[Almanac, Vol.
49, No. 2 (September 3, 2002), p. 3], and I have been called
upon to act on behalf of the University. Groups and individuals
within and outside the academic community, and on all sides
of these questions, are organizing to advance their political
viewpoints, to thwart what they see as threats of intimidation
and bias, and to encourage colleges and universities, and their
leaders, to add their moral authority and financial influence
to these debates.

On
October 7, TheNew York Times published a full-page
advertisement, signed by a number of current and former college
and university presidents and chancellors, denouncing intimidation
and intolerance aimed at Jewish and Zionist students and faculty
on college campuses in America. Then, this past week, national
and local media focused attention on efforts by some faculty
and students to pressure Penn and other colleges and universities
to divest from companies doing business with Israel, as a sanction
for its actions toward the Palestinian people.

We
have received e-mails, calls, and letters from Penn alumni,
students, and friends who want to know where I stand on these
issues. I am using this piece to share my thoughts with the
entire Penn community both on why I did not sign a statement
whose sentiments I shared, and why I oppose targeting Israel
for divestment.

Why
Targeting Israel for Divestment and Boycotts is Wrong

Some
members of the Penn community have called on the University
to pressure Israel by divesting from companies doing business
with "Israel and any other human rights violators." Elsewhere,
some academics have tried to boycott the participation of their
Israeli counterparts in scholarly journals and conferences.

With
equal fervor and conviction, other members of the Penn and
international scholarly communities have condemned the divestment
and boycott campaigns as offensive, anti-Semitic, attempts
to delegitimize the State of Israel and to prevent academic
exchange.

Because
Penn defends freedom of expression as a core academic and societal
value, we will not use the power of the University either to
stifle political debates or to endorse hostile measures against
any country or its citizens.

Divestiture
is an extreme measure to be adopted rarely, and only under
the most unusual circumstances. Certainly, many countries involved
in the current Middle East dispute have been aggressors, and
calls for divestment against them have been notably absent.

Divestment
also runs counter to the University of Pennsylvania's long-held
position that investment decisions are best guided by the University's
fiduciary responsibilities to its donors, students, and employees,
and by its overarching institutional responsibility as an educational
and research institution to remain unbiased and nonpartisan
in the pursuit of knowledge. [Almanac, Vol.
44, No. 20 (February 3, 1998), pp. 4-5.]

Therefore,
the University of Pennsylvania will not support divestment
from Israel, boycotts of Israeli scholars and scientists, or
any effort to stifle the free expression of diverse ideas and
opinions about the Middle East conflict by our faculty and
students.

The
Right Way to Counter Intimidation on Campus

While
I personally endorse the substance of the American Jewish Committee
statement against intimidation of Jewish and Zionist students
and faculty, I and many other current presidents refused to
add our names to the statement because we felt the ad was unbalanced--particularly
after a year in which Arab and Muslim students on Penn's campus
have been subjected to at least as much harassment and intimidation
as Jewish students. Reportedly, despite requests from several
presidents, the authors of the statement refused to broaden
its language to recognize this fact. My overriding responsibility
as Penn's president is to protect all of our students
from intimidation and threats of violence. I believe the best
way to do this is to expose the haters and intimidators to
the public scrutiny of their peers.

Safety
and security are prerequisites of academic life--and universities
and colleges go to great lengths to protect our students from
harm--but that is not the same as assuring that they always
feel comfortable. As we learned during the era of campus speech
codes, the fastest way to empower and embolden hatred and intimidation
is to try to suppress it. Learning how to bring hatred and
intolerance into the light of day and to engage its emotions,
arguments, and rhetoric with reason and evidence may involve
confrontation and discomfort, but it inevitably strengthens
our students and institutions for the responsibilities of citizenship
and civic engagement we all share. Invariably, hateful ideas
will crumble under the weight of relentless scrutiny and informed
debate.

Over
the past eight years, I believe this approach--whether the
threatened parties were Haitians, Jews, Muslims, African-Americans,
Latinos, sexual minorities, religious zealots, conservatives,
or liberals--has made our students, our campus, and our institution
stronger and lessvulnerable to intimidation.

We
certainly do not remain aloof from the pain felt by groups
and individuals who are the targets of threats or hate speech,
or from their deeply felt concerns for their own safety. But
I will not respond to intimidation with more intimidation.
Others may do as their own sense of professional responsibility
dictates, but I will stay the course of encouraging, rather
than discouraging, the most robust and engaged debate possible--even,
and especially, with those who would seek to intimidate or
threaten their opponents. Public confrontation is their greatest
enemy, not presidential statements.

Finally,
we all should recognize that neither Penn nor any other institution
has the power to ban hatred; rather, we believe that
the appropriate role of an academic institution is to counter
hatred and intimidation by empowering our students with the
knowledge, self-confidence, and critical thinking skills they
need to defeat hate.